Joint Statement

[twodivine]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='18 February 2010 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1266549688' post='2191166']
this is the same war that \m/-Polar were fighting. a new one was never started.
[/quote]

You keep thinking that. C&G members had allies on both sides of the issue they weren't planning on getting involved in the conflict between \m/ and Polar.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Urmom(U)' date='19 February 2010 - 03:22 AM' timestamp='1266549729' post='2191168']
One thing that is bothering me in this thread is when people say that this war was CB-less. I'd like to see planet Bob evolve away from this thinking since it's rather outdated. Casus Belli means a justification for war. We feel that we had justification for this war. Our line of thinking was that CnG would just enter the war down the line when we were beaten up and wipe the floor with us. Instead of taking the chance of that happening, we just skipped right to it. You may disagree with it and think that it wasn't the best plan, but it doesn't mean that a CB isn't there. We wouldn't attack for no reason unless we felt threatened. I notice a lot more people are being careful with their wording though which is good. Anyways, just my .02.
[/quote]

Sure it's a cb, but it's not a very good one, and if we're going to declare on people we view as a threat pre-emptively it cuts out the juicy political foreplay you have before the war starts.

And that's no fun is it?

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='18 February 2010 - 10:21 PM' timestamp='1266549688' post='2191166']
this is the same war that \m/-Polar were fighting. a new one was never started.
[/quote]

Even if you embrace that legal fiction you STILL jumped into an aggressive war, In case you forgot, the DoW admitted as much.

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' date='18 February 2010 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1266548790' post='2191100']
Actually we're currently taking in applications for the viceroy position. It is open to all members of the public of course.
[/quote]

Can I get in on that? I've always wanted to be a viceroy of something, I bet I can swing a bribe or two if needed.

[Hyperion321]

out of curiosity, TOP...do you even regret attacking C&G? It's been pretty well established that they weren't planning on rolling you, not to mention that you entered the war to support people that you don't even like (or didn't seem to ). It seems like all of your reasons for entering don't have any base what so ever in restrospect, so do you have any remorse what so ever for starting this cluster$%&@?

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1266549754' post='2191172']
We weren't fighting in that war though. Were we?
[/quote]

very likely with a chance of rain. i believe archon's thread had someone posting that many nations were sent into peace mode to counter an attack so i'd take that as CnG knowing it was coming or at least expecting it(kind of like TOP expecting CnG to enter later on). now, now, i know you'll bring up the "but we didnt or anything" and it doesnt really matter at this point. TOP was expecting a war, CnG was expecting a war. TOP just threw the first punch and CnG has been able to spin that to their favor.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 03:31 AM' timestamp='1266550312' post='2191218']
very likely with a chance of rain. i believe archon's thread had someone posting that many nations were sent into peace mode to counter an attack so i'd take that as CnG knowing it was coming or at least expecting it(kind of like TOP expecting CnG to enter later on). now, now, i know you'll bring up the "but we didnt or anything" and it doesnt really matter at this point. TOP was expecting a war, CnG was expecting a war. TOP just threw the first punch and CnG has been able to spin that to their favor.
[/quote]


Just because we were expecting a war, doesn't mean we wanted one, our allies were getting involved more and more and we were trying to end it I believe.

We were planning for the worst case scenario.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Myworld' date='18 February 2010 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1266549892' post='2191182']
You keep thinking that. C&G members had allies on both sides of the issue they weren't planning on getting involved in the conflict between \m/ and Polar.
[/quote]

So, you're calling Archon a liar? He states right here that C&G was prepared to enter if their allies got attacked. If TOP/IRON intended to attack their allies, then C&G would clearly have been the threat TOP/IRON perceived them to be.

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1266288410' post='2184044']
We would also like to publicly assert that at no time did the Complaints and Grievances Union ever intend to aggressively pursue war against TOP or IRON. We do indeed recognize the fact that, had TOP or IRON hit our allies, we would be honor bound to defend them.
[/quote]

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1266549754' post='2191172']
We weren't fighting in that war though. Were we?
[/quote]

I'll let achon speak for you guys. In the other thread he states

[quote]We would also like to publicly assert that at no time did the Complaints and Grievances Union ever intend to aggressively pursue war against TOP or IRON. We do indeed recognize the fact that, had TOP or IRON hit our allies, we would be honor bound to defend them. We would also like to note that 2 + 2 = 4, as we feel these two statements are equally obvious. Had TIFDTT not wished to engage the Union, or had they wished to avoid the perceived threat, not attacking us or our allies would have been a really simple way to achieve this. [/quote]

Given the circumstances of the coalition war, he is essentially admitting that CnG would have found itself on the other side of the war. I mean if you want to continue arguing that you wouldn't have been on the opposite side of the on going war, thats fine, I just think it is silly and no one will take you seriously. Find a new point to get us on, because I really think that one has been beat to death.

[Blackout]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 03:48 AM' timestamp='1266482925' post='2189409']
Nobody is disbanding anyone, or killing anyone with reps. How many friggin times do we have to tell you.

If somebody gets forced to disband as a surrender term, I'll give you all my tech. Quote me on that.
[/quote]

So if I ask my President to set surrender terms for disbanding... can I have your tech?

<--- don't take this post seriously all you iFOK, MK, PC , FOK, etc.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Stetson' date='19 February 2010 - 03:35 AM' timestamp='1266550507' post='2191229']
So, you're calling Archon a liar? He states right here that C&G was prepared to enter if their allies got attacked. If TOP/IRON intended to attack their allies, then C&G would clearly have been the threat TOP/IRON perceived them to be.
[/quote]

If C&G were a threat to TOP/IRON, by your logic it would only be as a result of TOP/IRON being a threat to C&G and her allies. We were a 'threat' because of the course of action they would have chosen to take.


Not our doing at all.

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='19 February 2010 - 03:35 AM' timestamp='1266550525' post='2191231']
Given the circumstances of the coalition war, he is essentially admitting that CnG would have found itself on the other side of the war. I mean if you want to continue arguing that you wouldn't have been on the opposite side of the on going war, thats fine, I just think it is silly and no one will take you seriously. Find a new point to get us on, because I really think that one has been beat to death.
[/quote]

See above. We would end up on the opposite side of the war, because of your actions against our allies. You're not going to start spinning it so it would have been our fault you attacked our allies and were obligated to defend them, are you?

What point would you like to get onto then?

Edited February 19, 2010 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Johnny Apocalypse]

double post. delete.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1266550686' post='2191238']
If C&G were a threat to TOP/IRON, by your logic it would only be as a result of TOP/IRON being a threat to C&G and her allies. We were a 'threat' because of the course of action they would have chosen to take.


Not our doing at all.
[/quote]

I'm not saying you're wrong. But I was replying to the gentleman who said that C&G was planning on staying out of the war because of conflicting treaties.

[SiCkO]

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' date='18 February 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1266548790' post='2191100']
Actually we're currently taking in applications for the viceroy position. It is open to all members of the public of course.
[/quote]

good luck to all those applying, you shall need it, totem likes to try out his new weapons on the newbies first

on a happier note, it's great to see the new overloads getting comfortable in your chairs and start to play "world order" again, I look forward to the next couple of months

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 10:38 PM' timestamp='1266550686' post='2191238']
If C&G were a threat to TOP/IRON, by your logic it would only be as a result of TOP/IRON being a threat to C&G and her allies. We were a 'threat' because of the course of action they would have chosen to take.


Not our doing at all.
[/quote]

Your right. We are saying this was the way it was. The sides of the treaty web dictated you would have been on the opposite side. TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN were going to be on NpO's side due to IRON's tie to NSO. That is the fact. No one is blaming you for having the treaties you have, we are simply asking you to acknowledge that in the context of the coalition war, your obligations dictated that you would have been on the other side, as IRON's obligations dictated we would have been with NpO. So since you were on the other side, and because you guys are a powerful block, CnG was a "threat" to the successful prosecution of the \m/-NpO war. It is just the way it is.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='SiCkO' date='19 February 2010 - 03:42 AM' timestamp='1266550941' post='2191251']
good luck to all those applying, you shall need it, totem likes to try out his new weapons on the newbies first

on a happier note, it's great to see the new overloads getting comfortable in your chairs and start to play "world order" again, I look forward to the next couple of months
[/quote]


I find it pretty funny that because we're winning and you are losing it makes us evil overlords.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='19 February 2010 - 03:35 AM' timestamp='1266550525' post='2191231']
I'll let achon speak for you guys. In the other thread he states



Given the circumstances of the coalition war, he is essentially admitting that CnG would have found itself on the other side of the war. I mean if you want to continue arguing that you wouldn't have been on the opposite side of the on going war, thats fine, I just think it is silly and no one will take you seriously. Find a new point to get us on, because I really think that one has been beat to death.
[/quote]
So because C&G was prepared to defend their allies from [i]your[/i] attacks...[i]they[/i] are the aggressive threat to [i]you?[/i]. TOP might as well have attacked Sparta too, since we are honor bound to defend C&G. Then TOP's allies might as well have pre-empted our allies, as we are all honor bounded to defend eachother.

Reading a treaty web and figuring out who will hit you if you hit their friends does not make them a threat, it makes them people who will hit you if you hit their friends. You can't try to say C&G was something that they are not. You just can't.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1266551031' post='2191258']
So because C&G was prepared to defend their allies from [i]your[/i] attacks...[i]they[/i] are the aggressive threat to [i]you?[/i]. TOP might as well have attacked Sparta too, since we are honor bound to defend C&G. Then TOP's allies might as well have pre-empted our allies, as we are all honor bounded to defend eachother.

Reading a treaty web and figuring out who will hit you if you hit their friends does not make them a threat, it makes them people who will hit you if you hit their friends. You can't try to say C&G was something that they are not. You just can't.
[/quote]

So, Archon was wrong as well?

[Deadshot]

I dont want peace. I want war.

(yes i am pm, to get out of anarchy so calm down.)

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1266550686' post='2191238']See above. We would end up on the opposite side of the war, because of your actions against our allies. You're not going to start spinning it so it would have been our fault you attacked our allies and were obligated to defend them, are you?

What point would you like to get onto then?
[/quote]

he's not saying it's your fault. he's saying that we would have ended up at war anyways so it was, at the moment, strategically sound to throw the first punch to try to knock out an opponent early on. but CnG has attempted to spin it their way and say that they're some poor innocent victim that would have never entered the conflict even though Archon clearly stated that if TOP/IRON entered to support allies, that CnG would enter. so what point are you trying to get across?

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='19 February 2010 - 03:43 AM' timestamp='1266551019' post='2191255']
Your right. We are saying this was the way it was. The sides of the treaty web dictated you would have been on the opposite side. TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN were going to be on NpO's side due to IRON's tie to NSO. That is the fact. No one is blaming you for having the treaties you have, we are simply asking you to acknowledge that in the context of the coalition war, your obligations dictated that you would have been on the other side, as IRON's obligations dictated we would have been with NpO. So since you were on the other side, and because you guys are a powerful block, CnG was a "threat" to the successful prosecution of the \m/-NpO war. It is just the way it is.
[/quote]
At least you're being blunt and honest and not trying to be some kind of moral crusader striving for justice in this world by eliminating the immoral C&G bloc, we were simply an obstacle preventing you from winning the war so you thought you'd eliminate us first. Fair enough, all is fair in love and war, and I'm glad you admit that, but don't expect us to let you off with a white peace.

K?

[quote name='Wentworth the Brave' date='19 February 2010 - 03:46 AM' timestamp='1266551211' post='2191267']
I dont want peace. I want war.

(yes i am pm, to get out of anarchy so calm down.)
[/quote]

S'alright, so am I. Wanna fight?

Edited February 19, 2010 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Canik]

[quote name='Myworld' date='18 February 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1266549634' post='2191163']
The way this is going the OP better re-think their OP statement. Seems that the list is getting smaller.
[/quote]

Your reality must be getting even more delusional, because the list has actually grown.

MXCA was removed shortly after the announcement due to some mix-up in communication, although I'm sure they support giving those who want peace reasonable terms. Since then, VA and GUN have added their signatures.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Canik

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1266551031' post='2191258']Reading a treaty web and figuring out who will hit you if you hit their friends does not make them a threat, it makes them people who will hit you if you hit their friends. You can't try to say C&G was something that they are not. You just can't.
[/quote]

it does if their friends are hitting your friends so if you hit their friends to defend your friends, then they come in to defend their friends from you so why not skip all the hitting friends !@#$ and go straight for who you would be fighting in the end. ding ding! makes perfect sense.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 03:50 AM' timestamp='1266551435' post='2191283']
it does if their friends are hitting your friends so if you hit their friends to defend your friends, then they come in to defend their friends from you so why not skip all the hitting friends !@#$ and go straight for who you would be fighting in the end. ding ding! makes perfect sense.
[/quote]


Because that would be boring, and would make you boring leaders if you just cut to the chase everytime.


Don't be so assuming of other peoples actions. You might be wrong.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Deadshot]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1266551245' post='2191269']
At least you're being blunt and honest and not trying to be some kind of moral crusader striving for justice in this world by eliminating the immoral C&G bloc, we were simply an obstacle preventing you from winning the war so you thought you'd eliminate us first. Fair enough, all is fair in love and war, and I'm glad you admit that, but don't expect us to let you off with a white peace.

K?



S'alright, so am I. Wanna fight?
[/quote]


Abso- friggin- lutely

you're still my guy Johnny

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='19 February 2010 - 03:43 AM' timestamp='1266551019' post='2191255']
Your right. We are saying this was the way it was. The sides of the treaty web dictated you would have been on the opposite side. TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN were going to be on NpO's side due to IRON's tie to NSO. That is the fact. No one is blaming you for having the treaties you have, we are simply asking you to acknowledge that in the context of the coalition war, your obligations dictated that you would have been on the other side, as IRON's obligations dictated we would have been with NpO. So since you were on the other side, and because you guys are a powerful block, CnG was a "threat" to the successful prosecution of the \m/-NpO war. It is just the way it is.
[/quote]
That is not the way in which TOP saw C&G as a threat.

[quote]For our part, however, much our reason to enter this war lies in our desire to defeat those who have shown time and time again, in public and in private, that doing harm to us is high on their agenda---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so. This is a war they have brought upon themselves.[/quote]
As you can see in Crym's words, TOP falsely believed C&G to be a threat based on past experiences with C&G members. They were not attacking in the context of the present war, they were attacking in the context of their misguided interpretations of history with C&G.

I'll be honest - for a long time I didn't like what MK members often said about my alliance either. They are very..."colorful"...with their free speech policies, and don't really care if you don't like what they say about you. It angered me for a while, as Sparta never really picked at MK for anything, but we never saw them as a threat because they didn't like us (or it seemed that way at least). Interpreting the that comes from MK as a threat is just plain paranoia. Hell, they rigged the alliance awards to make themselves win everything. They're not evil or threatening, just . And [i]that[/i] is the way it is my friend.